Gender modifiers: the other side of the coin

Alright, I think we're all pretty familiar with the idea that females in D&D should receive modifiers to differentiate them from males, usually in a way that makes playing them a pain in the ass.

I'm not going to argue that there are no differences between the sexes in real life, but I would like to point out that for gender modifiers make little sense in a fantasy world. PCs by definition are extraordinary individuals, and to have a female who is as strong as/stronger than her male counterpart seems appropriate in that regard.

Biology might not support it, but this is a world where you can be descended from a dragon, demon, devil, angel, or god; where deities routinely bless their champions with magical powers, and where it is entirely possible to fall into a cauldron full of strength potion as a child. In short, there are so many science defying things floating around in the average D&D campaign that female PCs having great strength really seems like an odd thing to get hung up on.

As for the human population in general, they were likely created by gods instead of arisen through evolution. In real life it seems that humans evolved and developed a bit of sexual dimorphism; a race designed by a maker, on the other hand, would not necessarily have that feature if the creator did not desire it.

I've had a few people implement gender modifiers or other cases relating to the sexes of characters be it bonuses or negatives.

I always found it as a deterrent for some people wanting to build characters they like in lieu of a better character build optimization just due to a gender.

Seen alot of players take advantage of such or switched just so they weren't like the others with a disadvantage. Which to me, not only takes the creativity out of it, it separates the gender line even more so. Since... what if a girl wanted to play a woman that was strong, charismatic and strong in constitution like any man, but instead was better done as a guy?

Seems unfair.
But that's just me. Some may prefer the contrast in capabilities.

Here's my gamer guy take on adding gender-based stat mods to RPGs that don't have them, developed over my personal decades of gaming experience:

1) the GMs who do so almost always are male

2) they rarely take into account both known disadvantages AND advantages for particular genders. For example, females get a negative STR mod, but rarely do they get bonuses to ranged accuracy or to endure certain kinds of environmental stressors. Nor do males receive their share of disadvantages- 33% more likely to die before age 16, higher suicide rates, and common (as in 1 in 1000) male-only genetic disorders.*

* Yeah, I know none of those are necessarily related to being an "adventurer", but those are ones I know off the top of my head at 2:45AM.

-2 Strength. It is known that women have a lower potential strength due to the effects of sex hormones.
+2 Constitution. Women are able to survive food/water deprivation better than men, thanks to having a higher proportion of body fat.
+6 Wisdom. Women are known to make better priest(esse)s than men.

-2 Strength. It is known that women have a lower potential strength due to the effects of sex hormones.
+2 Constitution. Women are able to survive food/water deprivation better than men, thanks to having a higher proportion of body fat.
+6 Wisdom. Women are known to make better priest(esse)s than men.

So you go into a thread that's solely about why NOT having gender-based stat modifiers is a good idea. You "do not recommend using these in any actual game". And yet you STILL post some bloody gender-based stat modifiers? Because you couldn't NOT do it or what?

I don't understand.

EDIT: Oh, wait, I do now. You're trying to be master of irony yourself! Right? Right?!